* Over a year ago I first heard that some shatter cones are magnetized. And I thought that sounds like something electricity could do, as from lightning. Can anything other than electricity make anything magnetic? The trouble is that rocks under stress can apparently produce electric currents. But can those little rock currents magnetize rock the way a big current from lightning can?* One website has this paragraph on shatter cones. "Shatter cones that may form beneath a meteorite impact crater are similar to what happens on a SMALL scale when a BB strikes a window and pops a cone out of the glass pane. The sharp end faces toward the impact, and the larger circular base faces away from it. Shatter cones occur on a LARGE scale when a sufficiently massy object strikes Earth. Billions of tons of rock are vaporized. Below that, rock is shattered and melted. As shock waves speed through hard rocks below and surrounding these rocks, they leave shatter cones in their wake, fossilized shock waves, their points facing toward the direction of impact. "* One problem with the bolide impact theory seems to be that fractured rock is often not found under craters. Isn't that correct? Isn't that true of Meteor Crater?* Another website says:Shocked Quartz:- has a microscopic structure that is different from normal quartz;- was discovered after underground nuclear bomb testing;- is found worldwide, in a thin K-T Boundary;- can only be formed by intense pressure at moderate temperature, as high temperatures would anneal the quartz back to its standard form;- is indicative of impact (or nuclear explosion) [or lightning etc?].* Hmm. If the K-T Boundary contains a lot of shocked quartz, would that mean worldwide impacts? Or worldwide electrical activity, like lightning?* Shatter cones are considered to be produced by shock waves, as is also shocked quartz, and lightning is known to produce shock waves, but no one seems to think about lightning producing shatter cones. So I just did a net search for anything that might connect shocked quartz to lightning and I found the following interesting material at http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~mpasek/Pasek_CV.pdf. Check out his publications.

Matthew A. PasekDepartment of GeologyUniversity of South Florida4202 E. Fowler AveTampa FL 33620Phone: (813)-974-8979Fax: (813)-974-2474Visiting Assistant Professor of Geochemistry, University of South Florida 01/09-05/10Research Goals:1) To constrain the role of meteorites in the origin of life from the perspectivephosphorus redox biogeochemistry2) To constrain the aqueous redox geochemistry of phosphorus3) To constrain the effects of lightning on geologic samples4) To detail chemical processes occurring in the solar systemInvited Talks and Presentations

HiI posted this on another thread, but this seems more relevant. My apologies for double posting, I should look before I leap a little more. but -

I can't explain crater formation, but I do have an observation about craters which contradicts the theory of their formation by impact.

Nearly every crater I've ever seen pictures of in the solar system – whether on our moon, another moon or on another planet – are perfectly circular. Surely this requires that the falling body strike the moon or planet at 90o

Yet a falling body will (I think) always strike the moon or planet at an oblique angle as gravity pulls it in and therefore will always leave an elongated impact crater. Even if only slightly.

Small elongated craters can be seen from photographs of where small meteors have hit the earth close to a handy photographer.

But I have not counted even ONE elongated crater in all the pictures that I have seen of craters on our moon, other moons and other planets.

Doesn't(/can't) this disprove/falsify the theory of crater formation by impact ?

* I've heard it said that low angle impacts do form round craters, but I don't have a reference offhand.* The Giordano Bruno crater on the moon appears to have formed in 1178 AD, witnessed by Canterbury monks. There was a very bright flash, followed by a darkening of the limb of the moon for a while, then a return to normal brightness.* There is said to have been a crater that formed from a witnessed meteorite impact in Siberia in 1947.* If anyone can find references for any of this, feel free to post. And thanks.* Large craters on small moons and asteroids seem to be a good case for ED. A number of other features do too.

We might request of, say, NASA that they formulate a crater impact computer model, and demand that the model outcome be exactly what we observe on Mars (I want to start with the Warrior Planet).

When they formulate the computer model we should allow them to assume the "answer," which is where they start the exercise so that it comes out exact; that answer is what is already observable at hundreds of Martian crater locations.

Then we ask for the unedited code...the algorithm as well. In other words, to get the computer video game to come out exact, and repeatedly exact, it may necessarily be wraught with exaggerations and incorrect logic, all the way to the point of being outrightly fraudulent. There are so many track-record examples to pick from.

I propose this partly on the basis of their (Who? Take your pick!) prior track record w.r.t. video games and established subjects, such as (Again, take your pick)... For example, you could pick from climate models at Kyoto? How about the farcical computer simulations they produced to explain the free-fall collapse of WTC-2? WTC-1? (In these two cases NIST and Purdue come to mind). And the utterly farcical computer simulations from NIST relative to the 5pm collapse of WTC-7?!

Right now their answer is 'meteor impact = crater formation,' or something very similar. So, there are two parts to the "answer" from which they start the process: The actual observable craters and meteor impact/collision. I want to see the code and the algorithm that gets them to their preconceived "answer."

I think that many of the things NASA finds are unusual to them because they are attempting to shoehorn new information/data into a falsified theory.

If you had provided a link, or better yet, the image, we could maybe see what has confused NASA so.

"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong.""Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one.""Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire

BABOafrica wrote:I was just curious about why NASA thought the crater to be unusual.

This is one image of it, and this is another. I think it's odd that they really don't look like exactly the same crater.

I don't think they are!..maybe that is what is confusing NASA!

the first thing i noticed about both images was the bright crater edges. these may be underlaying minerals or continued electrical activity.

michael, you keep warning us to be careful, but have not said how to be careful....

can someone please tell me how to mask the url? thanks...

"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong.""Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one.""Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire

Sparky wrote: Can someone please tell me how to mask the url? thanks...

I'll try: Click on the "maskurl button. You get this (minus the space b'tween Mask and url:" [mask url=][/mask url]

Now, retreive the url you wish to mask and copy it after the = sign in the first set of brackets. Next; type the word/s you wish to use mask the url between the two bracketed code modules, such as "Here" or "This site."

So your product would look something like this: [mask url=http://www.einsteinwrong.com/main/] see this site[/mask url]